You are hereHome › Assessment of facts and circumstances ›
EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Protection, Real risk, Relevant Facts
This case concerned a judicial review challenge of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision where the Court held that there must be a thorough analysis as to the forward looking fear of a person being returned to Pakistan on account of their religion.
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Ukraine
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Individual assessment, Internal protection, Obligation to give reasons, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
In the course of an asylum procedure, the statements of the asylum seeker have to be assessed integrally. This includes, inter alia, an analysis of (up-to-date) country reports. However, such analysis is not carried out in a sufficient manner where there are only superficial references to the country of origin information. Rather, it is required that the information contained is actually taken into consideration when taking the decision, applied to the specific circumstances of each case and compared to the information provided by the asylum seeker(s).If this is not the case, there...
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Rwanda
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The French National Asylum Court (CNDA) must do a complete assessment of facts and circumstances in deciding whether an applicant should be granted refugee status, or failing that, subsidiary protection. In doing so, it must take into account all the documentation provided by the Applicant in support of the application. In this case, the Applicant’s medical evidence documentation and the evidence relating to the potential risks she is likely to face if she returns to her country (fear of persecution due to imputed political opinions) should have been taken into account.The CNDA did not...
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The transfer of asylum seekers from Belgium to Austria, under the Dublin Regulation, is contrary to the principle of due diligence, because the government has failed to obtain information on the effects of the moratorium of the processing of asylum applications in Austria.
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Inadmissible application, Indirect refoulement, Real risk, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe third country, Stateless person
A decision by the State Secretary for Security and Justice (the “State Secretary”) of the Netherlands will be in violation of: (i) Article 3.37e of the Foreigners Regulation 2000 if such decision, regarding whether a country qualifies as a safe third country, is not based on several information sources; and/or, (ii) Articles 3.2 and 3.46 of the Dutch General Administrative Law Act on the basis that all decisions of the State Secretary are required to (a) be carefully prepared and (b) include a decisive motivation.
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal circumstances of applicant
In order for a correct application of the responsibility determination procedure under Dublin III to take place the applicant must be able to contest a transfer decision and invoke an infringement of the rule set out in subparagraph 19(2) DR III, i.e. where the applicant provides evidence that he/she has left the territory of one Member State, having made an application there, for at least three months and has made a new asylum application in another Member State.
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective access to procedures, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions
The application was in three parts: the applicants asked the tribunal to annul the police commissioner’s decision on how the registration of asylum requests was carried out in Paris; to compel the police commissioner to re-examine the methods of registration; to fine the state €1500. The first two parts of the application were granted but the third was not.
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Inadmissible application, Protection, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
If a Member State is responsible for carrying out an asylum procedure under the relevant terms of the Dublin Regulation, e.g. under Art. 29 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation, an applicant may invoke that Member State’s responsibility if it has not been positively established that another Member State (which does not have responsibility) is willing to take charge of the applicant or take him or her back.In such a case, it can be derived from the objective and purpose of the Dublin system, as well as the fact that it constitutes the procedural dimension of the substantive rights granted to...
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Obligation/Duty to cooperate
The case considered an appeal by the London Borough of Croydon (“Croydon”) to have Y’s claim for damages for wrongful detention stayed pending the resolution of Y’s challenge to the assessment of his age undertaken by Croydon.The Appellant submitted that the judge erred in holding that the principles in Starr v National Coal Board  1 WLR 63 (“Starr”) did not apply to this case. The Respondent argued that the Starr principles could not apply to this case. The Court upheld Croydon’s appeal, holding that the order sought by...
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Real risk, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
The Italian consolidated Law on Migration (Art. 5(6) n. 286/1998) requires humanitarian protection to be given where a person is in a situation of vulnerability. Such a situation occurs when the applicant’s constitutional and international fundamental rights, such as health and nutrition, are compromised.